To begin with, it would not involve use of fossil fuels; that has to be the first given. What's possible in that regard? Sustainability activist Steve Heckeroth notes that they run trains in Germany using photovoltaics for solar power. With enough panels, roof- or wall-mounted, we can do that here, but it takes the political will to shift our funding priorities from subsidizing the oil industry to developing and positioning the solar arrays necessary to run a mass transit system. That won't begin to happen as long as the current oiligopoly continues to run things.
Notice the reference to "mass transit." Given the nature of our society, mass transit is a necessity. Too many people have to travel to get to work and play to do without it. The hard part is replacing dependence on the individual automobile with a system that can transport thousandsÑsometimes hundreds of thousandsÑof people at a time. That's a big obstacle and the best means of doing that is probably to make individual travel so expensive that people will abandon their cars. It would probably suffice to include in fuel prices the true cost of producing that fuelÑincluding production, refining, transportation and environmental clean-up of fuelsÑwhich is far higher than what we're paying now. Would that work? Let's try it.
But of course mass transit can't meet the needs of people to get to the store and carry their packages. We already have the means to do that: they're called feet and we can apply them directly on the ground or indirectly by means of pedals on bicycles. But here too, we need to make substantial infrastructure changes. We have some bike paths, but we need to expand that system so that it reaches everywhere. There are people in a growing number of communities who make their living by transporting goods on bicycles. Of course that wouldn't work for long-distance hauling of large loads, but it would make life on the local level much more livable. Heckeroth puts it this way: "We need to quit building highways and get to building pathways."
Electric vehicles or, perhaps better, hydrogen-fueled vehicles, will go a long way toward cleaning up our air and providing transport at lower cost than our present system. However, it wouldn't do to replace our gas guzzlers with zippy little non-emission vehicles if it means that we still have to devote acres and acres of land to highways, garages and parking.
We really don't need to travel as much as we do. But to get to a place where we can substantially cut back would require a pretty thorough redesign of our lives and our communities. Today, designers are imagining live-work communities, where everything is within walking distance. Those folks are considered visionaries now; we'll know that we're moving in the right direction when we consider such thoughts mainstream.
Back to the issue of abandoning the car: even with substantial increases in the price of fuel, people are not going to park them without two things: alternatives and a lot of education about why we need them. Both of those are available; we just need to put them into use.
Of course, there is another alternative: we can continue on the way we are going and all suffocate before we reach 2100.
For every gallon of gas used, 20 pounds of carbon dioxide along with sulfur oxide and carbon monoxide are emitted into the atmosphere. A tuned car with properly inflated tires can use up to 20% less gas. Think before you drive; plan trips; carpool.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 2001
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited